intra vires
Glory to Michigan
In your initial post, you only mentioned a chamber of Congress once and that was with concerns about Biden/Harris losing them in the mid-term. It’s because I’m aware that you know how the government works that I call you fixated on the executive. It isn’t about understanding, you’re talking about bold action while neglecting to mention the branch of government tasked with actually taking them. Passing good legislation is more meaningful than anything Biden can do on his own that’s my point.
Biden’s most recent comments on the filibuster:
“It’s going to depend on how obstreperous they become,” Biden said of Republicans during a session with opinion journalists this month. “But I think you’re going to just have to take a look at it.”
He doesn’t want to do it, but he’s open to it if necessary. Since last year Schumer has said eliminating the filibuster “isn’t off the table.” The problem is they would need to eliminate it by a simple-majority vote and I’m not sure they’d have the votes. That’s why mentioned Feinstein by name, she’s more of a problem than Biden and Schumer.
My point about executive power and EOs isn’t to say we shouldn’t exercise them, merely that you need to be strategic about it because setting precedent is apparently more damaging than most realize. Unlike the conservative jurists, liberal ones respect precedent and don’t seek to overturn it for purely political reasons. So no, you don’t just act loose with EOs when more Trump judges are being appointed as time goes on, which increases the probability that you’d get one.
As for Roberts, you’re giving him far too much credit, Kennedy also but he’s not relevant. Roberts only sided with the liberal justices on the citizenship question because of the Stephanie Hofeller leaks. Roberts is the one who pretended racism is over when SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act (Kennedy helped with that). For every positive DACA vote he’s made, there are terrible Muslim ban and border wall funding votes he’s also cast. My point is, folks love citing the several times Roberts’ has sided with the liberal justices but always neglect to mention the reasons he’s done so or how frequent that is. Even if I’m not high on Kennedy, his reasons for voting with the liberal justices were genuine -- Roberts’ does it for optics. The man is a corporatist, not in the European sense, he seldomly rules against those interests. Is that the guy you want as the “swing vote” in a case where POTUS's ability to unilaterally cancel student debt is in question? Of course not.
We have similar sentiments on Biden on these issues; however, the major difference is I don’t view Biden as driving the conversation so my skepticism of him is passive. He will sign whatever bill Congress sends him, so his follow-through and success on accomplishing these things done will be tied to Congress. This is mostly true for every president though. Given his history in the Senate and his love of making deals, I do believe he will insert himself into negotiations that appear to be stalling. Hopefully, we don’t get any more “grand bargains.”
I believe Harris will be running point on criminal legal issues for the administration when they work with Congress. She’s done good things during her time as a prosecutor, such as Back on Track, and I don’t think they should be summarily dismissed. However, her issue is she tends to lean towards “ends justify the means” approaches (e.g. approach to truancy and wanting to weaken HIPAA privacy protections) when solving problems, which shows she's not driven by progressive ideology. The VP has no "real" power, so that means she won’t be able to lean into her worst tendencies. I do believe she’ll push him on marijuana, it’s too easy of a win not to, but whether or not she’s successful is another matter.
Unfortunately, we both know what to expect here -- Biden is a part of the foreign policy establishment. Some actions may be curtailed by the need to rebuild trust internationally, but I do largely expect them to get back to business as usual. Harris has nothing to offer on foreign policy and she will be a part of the foreign policy establishment by the time she runs on her own. Nothing about her should lead anyone to believe otherwise.
Finally, I don’t have a problem with critiquing Biden/Harris, I have a problem with people putting everything on them when many of these issues need to be addressed by Congress. You can include foreign policy to that list as well.
Last edited:
